It may be worth noting that GrapheneOS in most cases to date are not the initiators for conversations around extra device support. They do not control which mobile divisions and engineering teams can come to them and back genuine interest with the resources needed to reach an acceptable privacy/security standard for support.
The question is really why are Motorola the only ones that have gone that extra mile so far and what does it say about the rest of the Android OEMs (including Fairphone, which unlike most is actually a younger project than GrapheneOS).
The issue with small players like Fairphone is that they rely on external ODMs to develop their hardware and basic software. They do get some IP rights but they actually lack the engineering manpower to actually maintain software. ODMs usually have special trade agreements with factories and Google to optimize the prices. Small companies cannot get such leverages.
The details of the partnership are mostly disclosed in the joint announcements but GrapheneOS has no say or influence on Motorola's stock Android image and policy.
The main objective of the partnership is to do what you described in the former case, get Motorola up to a standard where GraphenOS could support the phone. They could not previously take a Motorola phone and build GrapheneOS for it because of numerous basic requirements they did not yet meet. I can guess that GrapheneOS only really condone the efforts Motorola will put in to meet their support requirements as a platform.
Motorola also gets to incorporate a subset of GrapheneOS's features and improvements as enterprise targeted Motorola features. GrapheneOS do not have any direct influence over the apps and policies for the stock GMS Android image Motorola ship with their phones. Motorola have no significant say in what GrapheneOS does with their OS. GrapheneOS can assist Motorola in hardening efforts at the OS and firmware layer etc.
I've not seen someone refer to a portion of GrapheneOS's mitigations as superficial and meaningless before. What might an OS with significant improvements to usable attack surface reduction and exploit mitigations look like to you? What sort of things (given a team of less than a dozen contending with OS updates, upgrades and device support) would you have liked to see implemented?
They have commented elsewhere that any inclusion/exclusion criteria (if at all) should be transparent and collaboratively decided rather than arbitrary, monopolised or ineffectual/deceptive. They mention several times that people should not be excluded from web services for browser/OS choice.
The requirements are not particularly stringent. It is more an embarrassing show from the rest of the Android OEMs that they don't meet basic standards like timely security updates and a decent support period.
There are a lot of judgemental comments here criticising Daniel's character, responses and handling of what was likely a very trying and stressful period in their life.
Barely any comments about the linked thread which is about Wired publishing an article that was extremely poorly researched after having misled GrapheneOS about the intention and content of what would be published. This seems like the sort of thing that should earn a disclaimer on future Wired articles as worthless and get them removed from RSS feeds/have subscriptions cancelled. Complete lack of integrity and respect for standards. Why did they not interview anyone else involved in the project or around at the time?
Phantom Secure is directly named as one of the parties Donaldson was dealing with, with others being suspected:
>Donaldson tried to make a deal with Phantom Secure, which ultimately didnt work out. Micay suspected other counterparties were linked to organized crime, but we cannot confirm those identities or ties on short notice. Donaldson began pursuing such deals before Micay left and continued afterward.
/e/OS (recipient of EU funding) and iodéOS are European projects that have not been singled out by the French government in smearing despite them having the similar self-professed goals to GrapheneOS. That they had any influence at all on the French government directly is speculated but not asserted.
CalyxOS/Techlore are blamed for being complicit in escalating the animosity and furore around what were initially low-key fallouts/disagreements. This led to GrapheneOS/Micay escalating to defend themselves which unchecked fuelled a spiral of influencer content, vile spamming of CSAM in GrapheneOS rooms (I can personally attest these were some of the biggest on Matrix at the time and led to the team giving up on Matrix moderation and self-protection capabilities), intense public speculation/accusations about Micay's character/mental health etc. which eventually resulted in the swatting attempts.
F-Droid project members have publicly aired their dislike of Daniel as a result of direct or indirect disagreements and did have a software quirk that caused an issue for GrapheneOS/possibly other custom OSes' users due to their added permission (which the two parties again disagreed on). Conspires is loaded wording.
But I do not think it is productive for me to dredge up posts and potentially cause more misunderstandings as a complete outsider for something that is directly affecting someone's life like this. They (Micay/GrapheneOS) have posted detailed contextual snippets and information about what has happened so please contact them directly for reference to the original posts and discuss if you really wish to find out more.
> ...Rossman being a Kiwifarms supporter.
>
> You can't believe someone who has constantly claimed things without receipts.
I had never actually visited Kiwifarms before today so I knew virtually nothing firsthand of what's actually going on there, other than hearing it repeatedly invoked in these discussions by supporters and detractors alike. A brief, cursory look turned up a dox thread thanking @larossmann for providing information.
It also turned up comments from some like, "Daniel Micay is a low-functioning cancer who should have been beaten and/or raped to death by a drunken father."
If anything, Micay appears to have been underselling things.
To be fair, it appears the project also has some supporters in that thread, and I'd have to delve further to figure out whether it's a 4chan-esque deliberate toxicity to keep the unwashed masses out, but it's not difficult to see how Micay isn't interested in dealing with Rossman. Rossman spends a lot of time knocking Micay online, but I'm not finding much in the way of even-handed coverage by Rossman from his considerable YouTube pulpit. Rossman also appears to be active on there recently. A few minutes of researching indicates a non-trivial possibility he has a role in all this and has zero desire to separate himself from it.
Many reasonable people would have zero interest engaging with someone like that, especially after they've donated money and then attached post-hoc strings to the donation.
I also saw firsthand Nick Merrill's chat behavior re: Daniel and GOS, and as one who used to contribute to both projects, I had zero qualms after that pulling all support from Calyx, which still makes me sad, as Nick at his finest was a pretty wonderful force for good. The same could be said of Rossman.
If this sort of thing doesn't at least somewhat moderate the consistent position you've held here every time GOS comes up, I don't see a way to assume good faith on your part in these threads. A number of people in these threads consistently adopt the form of making unsupported claims they could easily research before posting, and when presented with evidence to the contrary then move on to claim to be given unsatisfactory responses to their original questions and/or move the goalposts. When others eventually stop engaging, they claim the project supporters are unable to answer even their most basic questions (which have already been addressed numerous times, with citations).
It's against HN guidelines and its a pretty ignoble way to exist.
So why should we believe you over Micay, or are you willing to change your view after seeing evidence
It may be worth checking Motorola's OLED models in person (for example the Razr Fold, Razr Ultra and Signature) so see if their Flicker Prevention mode helps. I don't think any IPS models are likely to be supported in the first wave/generation of supported devices in 2027.
I have a Razr 2024 with the pOLED screen. It's bearable with Flicker Protection on, though not nearly as comfortable as an IPS. Heard good things about their AMOLED so will give it a chance if they don't support Graphene on an IPS model.
Having GrapheneOS preinstalled is an option they may discuss with Motorola. It is not the current plan. The current plan is that Motorola release their devices as normal, but some of the flagship devices in 2027 will support manual installation of GrapheneOS.
reply